Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Raindog115 · 03-08-2010, 10:13 PM

Anyone in the market for a non-sexual massage? Me neither. Unfortunately, I found out the hard way. The two following ladies are pointedly non-sexual. Both give competent massages, but that's it. Too bad -- they're both good looking gals and could make a fortune if they'd just end their sessions jerking a little gerkin. So be it.

Notice both of their ads conspicuously avoid any mention of providing only non-sexual massages. Whereas other ads state this position in ALL CAPS, these two girls say nothing. No doubt to rope in dupes who schedule something in the blind hope of a happy ending. Like me.

http://neworleans.craigslist.org/thp/1634137924.html

http://neworleans.craigslist.org/thp/1633970891.html

annie@christophers · 03-09-2010, 04:20 AM

Anything else to do with your day??? P.S DOES ANYONE REMEMBR WHEN BACK PAGE AND CRAIGSLIST ALSO WERE OFF LIMITS?? Hmmm. Makes one wonder now huh??

VeronicaMoore · 03-09-2010, 06:56 AM

It is in the therapeutic section, dude. Haha I mean, really... it's like going to McDonald's and being mad because you couldn't get pizza.

Raindog115 · 03-09-2010, 07:27 AM

Ladies, the Therapeutic section of CL is where a number of more generous female massage practitioners ply their trade. Their services have been celebrated for a long time. I could provide those links as reference to the both of you, but what would be the effing point. Thanks so much for your knowledgeable and constructive replies.

VeronicaMoore · 03-09-2010, 08:36 AM

My "effing point" is why complain when someone is using the section for its intended purpose? THEY are not the one who has the misunderstanding.

And yes, I'm very familiar with what the therapeutic section is for. Are you? I'll explain.

Originally intended for legitimate, non-sexual/sensual massage therapists to ply their trade, once CL started charging for adult services postings, many escorts started posting there because the section was free to advertise. Recently CL noticed that a lot of escorts were using this section to get around the fee, so they started charging to advertise there too. That doesn't take away from the fact that many legitimate, non-sexual massage therapists still use the section for its intended purpose.

Oh... and you're very welcome.

Kaylee · 03-09-2010, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raindog115

Ladies, the Therapeutic section of CL is where a number of more generous female massage practitioners ply their trade. Their services have been celebrated for a long time. I could provide those links as reference to the both of you, but what would be the effing point. Thanks so much for your knowledgeable and constructive replies.

I think the "therapist" and notation of the La. Lic. number should have been a huge light bulb, that it is not the same thing. No one in their right mind would reveal their tax I.D. and then run the risk of not only having that title pulled, but being arrested.

I can see your point about most girls advertising for illegal services in that same section though, but not all of them are hookers. If she wanted to mislead, no way she would have put that lic. number in the ad. In fact, LMT's are not even supposed to be in any way associated with escorts or they can lose their tag, which is why is really sucks when idiots review them for no reason! I know several legit LMT's who had to practically sue TER to have reviews removed that they did not warrant in the first place...and people wonder why those spas keep closing after a thread is posted about them lol.

Jen's ad sounds like a typical escort ad with no indication as to what you are getting, so I can see how that one would be a bit misleading. The other girl clearly has a reference to her legal services with the I.D. number on the last line.

dirty diana · 03-09-2010, 02:18 PM

"Jen's ad sounds like a typical escort ad with no indication as to what you are getting, so I can see how that one would be a bit misleading. The other girl clearly has a reference to her legal services with the I.D. number on the last line."

i thought that same thing when i looked at em

trekker · 03-09-2010, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirty diana

"Jen's ad sounds like a typical escort ad with no indication as to what you are getting, so I can see how that one would be a bit misleading. The other girl clearly has a reference to her legal services with the I.D. number on the last line."

i thought that same thing when i looked at em

Yep, a license number's a dead giveaway. Now, what I want to find is a "masseuse" who actually does a good massage before the naughty behavior begins. I've had one or two OK and several dismal "massages" from providers in the past but never a professional quality massage from someone who engaged in erotic play.

Raindog115 · 03-09-2010, 07:28 PM

Showing their license # does not preclude them from providing additional services. I speak from experience, not idle speculation.

The point is this: multiple threads have been written on multiple sites requesting information or providing reviews about various masseuses advertising in CL, Gambit, etc. Men want to know what services are and are not provided. I can say with authority the two aforementioned masseuses are strictly non-sexual and can be crossed off the list of those who had been wondering about them.

To those that appreciate the information, you are welcome. To one or two others, . . .

VeronicaMoore · 03-09-2010, 08:59 PM

Hmmmmmm... you just might wanna do that raindog (especially if you're going to completely screw up your "private" tags) LMAO. And we weren't being "pissy" or trying to pick fights with you. You're the one who responded with hosility.

bodilly · 03-09-2010, 09:45 PM

Something fishy

causewaycommuter · 03-09-2010, 10:21 PM

Mods, is there a way to tell if Raindog's post did in fact not get put in "private?" Or was it correctly put in Private when he originally posted it? I'm not seeing where his post has any reference to being edited, so I assume that the post as it currently reads is how it was originally appeared.

I just logged out and read the thread and couldn't see Raindog's private comments. So it is working fine now. It would be interesting to know if it was working fine when it was originally posted.

If anyone without Premium Access was able to read Raindog's private comment in the 9th post to this thread, could you please just do a quick post and let us all know?

VeronicaMoore · 03-09-2010, 10:26 PM

Sorry to disappoint, bodiddly, but you give me far too much credit. You messed up. :-)

Obviously I'm not full of shit and I don't have BCD. And isn't name calling a no-no? Tsk tsk.

You both are "smart guys," maybe you should fix your tags... or have the cajones to talk smack to our faces.

annie@christophers · 03-09-2010, 10:39 PM

KIDDING ME...that'll happen in a million years!!

Raindog115 · 03-09-2010, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeronicaMoore

Sorry to disappoint, bodiddly, but you give me far too much credit. You messed up. :-)

Obviously I'm not full of shit and I don't have BCD. And isn't name calling a no-no? Tsk tsk.

You both are "smart guys," maybe you should fix your tags... or have the cajones to talk smack to our faces.

What makes you think Bodily said you're full of shit and called you an inappropriate name? Are you suggesting he attempted to put something in Private mode but failed to pull it off?

I think the admin might have to look into the various accesses made available to the members. With a previous board, "BCD" was in true lockdown and was viewable only to a select few, except for the douchebags that shared the information with some women. With this board, "Private" doesn't appear to be all that exclusive. And by the way, my earlier post was not edited. It was put in Private correctly. Why Veronica can see it is the question, along with can everyone else as well.